|
One More Fat Nerd posted:Eh, when you're talking about single dudes in the mid-thirties and older, you probably do have a much better chance of running into either commitment-phobes (the serially single) or commitment-failures (the divorced). i think being commitment phobic and being serially single are distinct concepts a commitment phobic person has no trouble getting dates but also isnt interesting in committing to a single person for the not coincidental reason that they have no trouble getting dates a serially single person by contrast just never gets dates at all or gets them so rarely it becomes a personal complex to them as to why because if they look online for advice or whatever itll be things like "dont be a weirdo who takes shirtless bathroom mirror selfies" which isnt really very helpful if youre just a normal thirty something introvert i dont think women really get that the typical male experience right now is that getting dates is quite difficult and i dont blame them for thinking that since they can log onto hinge and get a date within maybe five minutes if they feel like it but youre not going to be able to make any useful analysis of gender relations in modern dating if your assumption that men are lazier than they used to be doesnt take into account the fact that for men dating is a skill and that the better they get at it the less incentive they have to want to get married in the first place
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 18:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 06:48 |
|
|
I can assure you getting a date in 5 minutes as a woman is not a universal experience op And we always have that nice worry that we'll get SA'd or have our skin eaten or something.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 18:11
|
|
|
marriage is a barbaric practice and I welcome its obsolescence
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 18:13
|
|
|
tokin opposition posted:I can assure you getting a date in 5 minutes as a woman is not a universal experience op i didnt mean to imply that the experience for women was better just that its really different to the point of being completely alien to how men tend to experience it one involves filtering out the skin eating cannibals and the other involves trying not to look like a skin eating cannibal
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 18:24
|
|
|
The whole current dating environment is "funny" because (for the cishets, at least) it's almost certainly never been a better time in modern history to be: -A notably hot, extroverted dude (a small subset of men) -A lady with a significant interest in casual sex (a small subset of women, who are often only in this category for a short period) Everyone else is worse off and its because capital decreed that the people who design gacha games were going to design every element of modern life.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 18:39
|
|
|
No one should be reproducing anyway. Cant hurt to have fewer people alive 100 years from now when people somehow must try to exist in a severly diminshed world, if they can exist at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 18:51
|
|
|
beginning to feel like it was maybe not a great idea to base our entire dating culture on the classic early internet website HOTorNOT
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 18:52
|
|
|
One More Fat Nerd posted:The whole current dating environment is "funny" because (for the cishets, at least) it's almost certainly never been a better time in modern history to be: I also assume dating is going great for anyone who can afford to spend $200 a month or whatever it costs these days to subscribe to the premium version of all the big dating apps.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 19:01
|
|
|
Anytime I read any viral post about dating I thank every god I can think of that I met my wife in college and have never had to date as an adult
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 19:13
|
|
|
was reminded of the thread title https://twitter.com/AmandaMarcotte/status/1759902324808413456
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 20:20
|
|
loquacius posted:was reminded of the thread title adding this to reasons_to_become_a_lesbian_FINAL_FINAL(2).pdf
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 20:50
|
|
|
One More Fat Nerd posted:Eh, when you're talking about single dudes in the mid-thirties and older, you probably do have a much better chance of running into either commitment-phobes (the serially single) or commitment-failures (the divorced). There was a study on this, after 30 the dating pool gets very bad, very quick.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 21:09
|
|
|
loquacius posted:was reminded of the thread title this isnt the first time ive seen this study cited and every time ive tried to look into it i can never figure out how labor is actually being defined theres another study that claims that single moms actually have more leisure time than married women which is equally as illogical on its face unless youre just assuming that the act of getting married arbitrarily creates new labor requirements out of nowhere that serve no actual purpose i suspect what these studies are actually quantifying is the increase in domestic labor required to maintain a bougie lifestyle or more charitably a lifestyle that involves both having kids and actually being attentive to their lives but measurements like that are completely worthless if youre not also keeping track of whether and to what extent the kids are doing any better as a result of all this extra labor Some Guy TT has issued a correction as of 21:34 on Feb 26, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 21:31
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:this isnt the first time ive seen this study cited and every time ive tried to look into it i can never figure out how labor is actually being defined I've read that it's because of how people think about housework. When you live by yourself and you do the dishes, you don't have to think of it as "work" or "for" anyone. It's just a thing you do. But there are things you do for your partner/family, that you would still be doing anyway. It's like a motivation thing. I would be happy if the dishes sat in the sink and I could kick that can down the road, but I can also motivate myself (positively) to do them for my family. This can be a really good thing, it's one of the positive things that comes from caring about other people. Well, I suppose now instead of thinking "the floor needs to be mopped (and there is no one else to do it)" it's "the floor needs to be mopped (and so I have to do it for my spouse)"? I know a few couples where one of them was always fastidiously clean but now they talk about "doing all the cleaning", when, yeah, they always did? And their spouse does the amount of cleaning they had always done too. Idk keeping score is generally not good to begin with, if you think about roommates that have a chore wheel or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 21:38
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:theres another study that claims that single moms actually have more leisure time than married women which is equally as illogical on its face unless youre just assuming that the act of getting married arbitrarily creates new labor requirements out of nowhere that serve no actual purpose I mean idk if the studies are correct but yes the assertion is that married women end up doing the husband's share of the chores as well
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 21:42
|
|
|
Does it really come down to a lot of women realising a bit late how they never actually wanted to get married in the first place and were just doing the thing you did? Well, mostly bougie white women anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 21:48
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Does it really come down to a lot of women realising a bit late how they never actually wanted to get married in the first place and were just doing the thing you did? Well, mostly bougie white women anyway. one reason i dont like the phrase "commitmentphobic" is that if you actually talk to guys like this it becomes pretty clear pretty quickly that its not that theyre afraid of commitment they just dont think married lifestyle is for them and theyre probably right theyre actually not that different from the women you describe here which is why its really weird that one of the key examples of feminist consciousness raising also manifesting in dudes results in pop feminists assuming these men must be sick in the head somehow
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 21:53
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:one reason i dont like the phrase "commitmentphobic" is that if you actually talk to guys like this it becomes pretty clear pretty quickly that its not that theyre afraid of commitment they just dont think married lifestyle is for them and theyre probably right The same is true with sexually liberated/fuckboy
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 21:55
|
|
|
I think we need to keep in mind the idea of marriage as survival strategy. All of this is in the modern day, but there's probably interesting material to think about how people in the past might have needed to have a wife because you're tilling dust 18 hours a day or whatever, and the wife needs a husband to not be murdered. Among the poor, being married means a tax break, not paying two rents, and someone (usually a woman) who can watch the kids. None of that is actually needed once you reach a certain level of wealth, so a lot of the pragmatic reasons to get married go out the door, but the social pressure remains. So a lot of women* get married, and find that it really doesn't benefit them all that much materially, and they don't actually like their partner when they're actually living together for the long haul. *Yes, men matter too and whatnot, but c'mon don't pretend the learned helplessness of men to do chores isn't a very real thing, especially for rich failsons.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 22:00
|
|
|
The obvious solution is a purely transactional marriage where all domestic duties and tasks (i.e., cooking, cleaning, sex, child-rearing duties, etc) are assigned a numerical value and the married persons do a reconciliation at the end of the month. Then you can know who is winning the relationship by who has more points, and you get to write an editorial about it
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 22:05
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:one reason i dont like the phrase "commitmentphobic" is that if you actually talk to guys like this it becomes pretty clear pretty quickly that its not that theyre afraid of commitment they just dont think married lifestyle is for them and theyre probably right women: only realize marriage is bad when it harms them personally
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 22:06
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:men: break down the institution of marriage in their mind and decide it's not for them perhaps both of these qualities could be true of either gender
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 22:13
|
|
|
tokin opposition posted:I think we need to keep in mind the idea of marriage as survival strategy. All of this is in the modern day, but there's probably interesting material to think about how people in the past might have needed to have a wife because you're tilling dust 18 hours a day or whatever, and the wife needs a husband to not be murdered. Among the poor, being married means a tax break, not paying two rents, and someone (usually a woman) who can watch the kids. None of that is actually needed once you reach a certain level of wealth, so a lot of the pragmatic reasons to get married go out the door, but the social pressure remains. So a lot of women* get married, and find that it really doesn't benefit them all that much materially, and they don't actually like their partner when they're actually living together for the long haul. yeah marriage is very much an institution primarily motivated by practical economic reasons whether those economic reasons are to avoid being murdered by hobos or a high level corporate business deal is kindof besides the point the institutions very existence doesnt really make much sense if you dont take that into account theres also no getting around its importance for childrearing either because yeah while you can in theory do the babymama jam and live in two completely different households this is almost always going to be way more expensive than just doing a normal marriage and even going it alone youre going to quickly run into the problem of having literally exactly half the labor you need unless youre so rich you can just buy it like its candy
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 22:18
|
|
|
I would argue against that. I did a lot of research for a post on that understanding of marriage for the Pop Culture thread, but haven't gotten around to posting it yet. The gist is, in marriages that were explicitly transactional, Victorians called them "Familiar Marriages", people were generally happier than in romantic marriages. It's completely counterintuitive, but I'll try to explain (briefly). As you know, CS Lewis argued there were four forms of love: Storge (empathy bond), Philia (friend bond), Eros (romantic love), and Agape (unconditional "God" love). We prioritize Eros as the foundation for a marriage, and assume the lack of a "spark" leads marriages to fail. The Victorians (and other people before c ~1900) believed, and research bears this out, that actually the presence of everything else matters much more to the success of a marriage. Which makes sense - you spend a lot more time going over the bills with someone than having steamy erotic encounters, so you need a relationship grounded in empathy and friendship. Previous forms of marriage supposed that if you had to choose, it was better to have those than pure physical attraction. Someone who can provide for you is a good basis for marriage, if you can accept that as a form of love and reciprocate. It just requires a sort of steadiness. The expectation is that the flames of passion flare up and burn down to embers periodically, but you need a form of consistency in your marriage. An agreement to materially provide for someone is constant, and so can be a good foundation to build things around, because it's unchanging. Day to day, you have an arrangement your marriage is built upon, and two forms of love, Storge and Philia, built into it, because the "base" - material support - provides for a "superstructure" - a close emotional bond. Romance's Rival: Familiar Marriage in Victorian Fiction Romance's Rival argues that the central plot of the most important genre of the nineteenth century, the marriage plot novel, means something quite different from what we thought. In Victorian novels, women may marry for erotic desire--but they might, instead, insist on "familiar marriage," marrying trustworthy companions who can offer them socially rich lives and futures of meaningful work. Romance's Rival shows how familiar marriage expresses ideas of female subjectivity dating back through the seventeenth century, while romantic marriage felt like a new, risky idea. Undertaking a major rereading of the rise-of-the-novel tradition, from Richardson through the twentieth century, Talia Schaffer rethinks what the novel meant if one tracks familiar-marriage virtues. This alternative perspective offers new readings of major texts (Austen, the Brontës, Eliot, Trollope) but it also foregrounds women's popular fiction (Yonge, Oliphant, Craik, Broughton). Offering a feminist perspective that reads the marriage plot from the woman's point of view, Schaffer inquires why a female character might legitimately wish to marry for something other than passion. For the past half-century, scholars have valorized desire, individuality, and autonomy in the way we read novels; Romance's Rival asks us to look at the other side, to validate the yearning for work, family, company, or social power as legitimate reasons for women's marital choices in Victorian fiction. Comprehensive in its knowledge of several generations of scholarship on the novel, Romance's Rival convinces us to re-examine assumptions about the nature and function of marriage and the role of the novel in helping us not simply imagine marriage but also process changing ideas about what it might look like and how it might serve people. DJJIB-DJDCT has issued a correction as of 22:33 on Feb 26, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 22:29
|
|
|
I honestly feel like "the personal is political" is another of those second-wave aphorisms that made a lot of sense in the 70s but in the 2020s is mostly a justification for NYT columnists to tell themselves that yes actually their personal domestic disputes over the dishes in the sink ARE serious social issues, of the same dire import as maternal healthcare access in red states or sharia law or whatever
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2024 00:41
|
|
|
(phoneposted that while emptying/reloading the dishwasher; my boomer parents are visiting and my mom is helping clean up but my dad is not)
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2024 00:45
|
|
|
thinking about that academic essay some goon wrote about kelly that made the argument that the whole joke of the kelly comics is that its the personal is the political taken to the most ludicrous possible extreme where every single minor petty grievance kelly endures becomes a form of political injustice i also remember him actually sending that essay to ward sutton and ward sutton really loved it saying YES im so glad someone gets what im doing with the kelly character anyway im possibly misremembering posts from maybe ten years ago so take all of this with a grain of salt
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2024 00:59
|
|
|
so im watching the recent jon oliver episode on pig butchering and theres a moment where he says the bar for men is so low in online dating that simply asking a woman questions and listening to her answers is enough to get a story rolling that ends with the woman giving him all her money this is exactly the kind of stereotyping i mean when i mention how alien these kinds of depictions seem to men because anyone whos ever actually tried to online date man or woman is quite familiar with the trope of the other person matching then you ask them an icebreaker question and just getting dead air the way the piece implies that women are more likely to be hit with this scam with men is likewise weird because i would be astonished if women victims were more common than men for this kind of scam as opposed to their just being the more photogenically acceptable sympathetic looking ones for these kinds of news stories
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 02:49
|
|
|
I know a lady who got hit with a dating site scam. It was surprisingly in depth, like, there were several dates, including sex, before the scam happened and the dude disappeared and she found out his name/details were fake. Seems like a lot of work for $1200. I'd be very surprised if men got hit with scams more than women on these sites. If you're paying people to run scams, you're gonna want them to be proactive, and that means messaging people first. (Obviously talking about the cishets here) Getting messaged first is the default for women on these sites. For regular dudes its a pretty rare occurrence and usually indicates something is up. In my experience it was about: 1/3 scams (usually pretty obvious, broken English, girl way too hot) 1/3 ladies who had an obvious reason dudes weren't messaging them (wheelchair, etc) 1/3 ladies who were looking for a person/situation far enough outside the norm that they had to go hunting. (6ft tall black women interested in short nerdy white boys are probably gonna have to go looking). Ladies on these sites are gonna be using all their energy looking out for stalker creeps, closet incels and violent assholes, as thats the primary danger to them. Scammers probably aren't even on the radar.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 14:37
|
|
|
One More Fat Nerd posted:I know a lady who got hit with a dating site scam. It was surprisingly in depth, like, there were several dates, including sex, before the scam happened and the dude disappeared and she found out his name/details were fake. Seems like a lot of work for $1200. That said, different types of scams also skew heavily based on the local culture and the gender of the person being targeted. Apparently a common scam in China is for restaurants/cafes to hire women to set up dates in the restaurant, making huge profits off of extremely expensive meals. Like $100-2,000 dollar expensive. Scams targeting women on the other hand apparently tend to target older women/widows.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 15:06
|
|
|
Is it Hinge that works by having a similar commute/working in the same building as people? That doesn't seem half bad for making a coffee date.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 15:15
|
|
|
One More Fat Nerd posted:I'd be very surprised if men got hit with scams more than women on these sites. If you're paying people to run scams, you're gonna want them to be proactive, and that means messaging people first. I think there's a bit of a contradiction here Someone's gotta be desperate enough to bite on these scams every once in a while or 1/3 of the times a woman messages a man first wouldn't be scams
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 19:28
|
|
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:Is it Hinge that works by having a similar commute/working in the same building as people? That doesn't seem half bad for making a coffee date. Coffee Meets Bagel was sorta like that though it was based on Facebook connections. Hinge is basically Tinder except you're liking/commenting on specific pics/statements on someone's profile instead of just swiping.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 20:18
|
|
|
I wish dating was less intimidating, I feel like I have to be perfect to have a chance to stand out on dating apps if I want to date other women, and I have not had great experiences with the men on those things because a lot of them behave really grossly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 23:24
|
|
|
meeting people irl is way less retarded in that way
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 23:33
|
|
|
It’s perfectly acceptable among drinkers to take a break from the booze and go sober for a while. So why do other forms of sobriety arouse so much suspicion and confusion from the wider public? American comedian Hope Woodard is spearheading a trend for what she terms going “boysober”. The movement is about keeping your twenties untainted by toxic dating habits and roundabout relationships. In her words, it’s about removing the “fake sense of validation that we get from dating and situationships and sleeping around, and refocusing that energy”. Just as people might want to stabilise after a period of riding the highs and lows of drunkenness and hangovers, so someone going “boysober” might want to purge themselves of the bad aspects of dating: being at the mercy of someone’s mood swings or experiencing the stomach-flipping roller-coaster of receiving puppy-like attention one minute and ghostly indifference the next. In deciding to go a year without relationships and sex, Woodard has kickstarted a debate about the ecosystem in which many of us date and the relative healthiness of it all. Even though Woodard has talked about it being a genderless phenomenon (a bit like Big D**k Energy), there’s a palpable sense that much of her fanbase – both online and at her live shows, themed around her experimental year – are women who date men. The idea of going “boysober” has emerged at a time when there’s an awkward fascination with the fact that Gen Z twentysomethings are seen to be drinking less, going clubbing less and having sex less. Even a UCLA survey reporting that this cohort wanted a lot less sex in films and TV made headlines. In the midst of this, the concept of going “boysober” has become entwined with notions of celibacy – something more often associated with religious prohibition. But I think that’s a misguided view. People going “boysober” don’t have a desire to be celibate. The real message here is surely that a significant number of people resonate with the idea that dating young men specifically can be as bad for you as alcoholism. Well-rounded men in their twenties are rare, but they do exist. I was, sadly, not one of them. Confusingly relaxed-yet-desperate, I suffered from a lack of confidence and simultaneously harboured a raging ego that would prevent me from committing to a relationship in a meaningful way. I wanted things but didn’t do the work to make them happen, nor communicate them in a clear and honest way. It doesn’t give me much comfort that, two decades on, the experience of dating a wet twenties flannel such as my former self is not unique. My life is littered with people who dated – or currently date – men who were emotionally unintelligent or unavailable, dangerously low in natural empathy, too proud or insecure to ever laugh at themselves, or unable to convey sexual desire that isn’t just an emulation of porn. If I could scream one thing in the general direction of twentysomething men right now, it would be to reflect on the fact that women believe they need to give you up en masse in order to lead stable, happy lives. Resist the urge to ally yourselves with the inevitable incel-esque backlash from the manosphere, and take a long, hard look in the mirror. It’s not a revelation that young men can be a bit crap. But perhaps what’s so radical about the idea of going “boysober” is the notion that you don’t have to spend your twenties filling a gigantic landfill crater with heaps of terrible exes, horrid one-night stands and commitment-phobic situationships in order to level up, find your footing and finally find yourself in the process. Perhaps, as Woodard’s challenge posits, we can attempt to find ourselves first, and then apply that to excellent sex and dating? It challenges established Western orthodoxy that says you have to kiss – or casually sleep with – a few frogs before you settle down with The One. Perhaps what’s so radical about the idea of going boysober is the notion that you don’t have to spend your twenties filling a gigantic landfill crater with heaps of terrible exes. Take Poor Things, where Emma Stone’s Bella Baxter character ultimately knows she wants to end up with Ramy Youssef’s nice Max McCandles character, but also knows she wants to destructively hump horrid cad Duncan Wedderburn, played by a hilariously arrogant Mark Ruffalo, first. Or look to one of last year’s biggest hits – the BRITS-nominated Escapism by Raye – where the protagonist handles a breakup with “Drunk calls, drunk texts, drunk tears, drunk sex”. But what if we’re actually changing? Flattering myself for one moment, maybe the heartfelt testimonies of the many forty-somethings like me are finally getting through to the younger generation. There is an army of people alive today who had terrible relationships in their twenties, better ones in their thirties and unbelievably good ones in their forties. Knowing that there is life – so much life, so much of it good – beyond the pressure cauldron of your early adulthood is something I desperately wish I’d known sooner. If men feel slighted by women giving them up like steaks during Veganuary, they really ought not to. In Aristophanes’ ancient Greek comedy Lysistrata, the title character organises a “sex strike” in order to end the Peloponnesian War and thus stop all the men folk pointlessly killing themselves. During the Temperance movement towards Prohibition in the 1920s, multitudes of women’s groups campaigned to limit the sale of alcohol because their husbands, brothers and sons were drinking themselves to death. It would be wise for men to take note: women might sometimes seek to take stuff away from you, but it’s usually with the best intentions. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2024 16:37
|
|
|
"boysober"
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2024 16:56
|
|
|
quote:During the Temperance movement towards Prohibition in the 1920s, multitudes of women’s groups campaigned to limit the sale of alcohol because their husbands, brothers and sons were drinking themselves to death. It would be wise for men to take note: women might sometimes seek to take stuff away from you, but it’s usually with the best intentions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2024 17:00
|
|
|
"whats the stupidest possible thing we could learn from first wave feminists" - a competition were having apparently
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2024 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 06:48 |
|
|
No but seriously, I love to put "neologisms" in "quotation marks" while referencing "Lysistrata," a "play" I read in my "freshman year."
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2024 17:06
|
|